"There was no consensus among Collegium members": Former CJI SA Bobde on why no judges were appointed to Supreme Court during his tenure

Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde on Saturday dismissed criticism directed at his tenure as the CJI, specifically the fact that no judges were appointed to the Supreme Court during his tenure at the helm..Justice Bobde said that no appointments could be made during his tenure as CJI since there was no consensus among Collegium members.He also said there have been instances in the past as well when judicial appointments have not taken place for a long time."It was because there was no consensus among the collegium members to arrive at a conclusion. Justice Akil Kureshi was just one name and there were many. So what? There have been times when judges have not been appointed for two years, almost. please. All of these judges were appointed later on. So what," he said.He was speaking at the India Today Conclave 2023.During the session, CJI Bobde touched upon various subjects relating to the Supreme Court. On the post of the Chief Justice of India, he said,"It is a difficult post.....The problems really arise from somewhat irresponsible comments made and CJI is answerable for that ... No thorns on the post, but the thorns are from the onlookers."On the Ayodhya case, he said that there was nothing political about it as far as the Supreme Court was concerned. "The word political can be attached to anything. There was nothing political in the ayodhya case, it was about Lord Ram's birth place. No politcs in Rafale, it was just about a defence deal. What is political about Ayodhya apart from politicians talking about it. Judges are not into politics, and we just adjudicate a claim. There was no extra pressure but some sense of anxiety while dealing with Ayodhya on how it will impact the body politic."He added that the same was the case when the Supreme Court stayed the now-repealed farm laws as well. "So many violent incidents were happening and I told the government, why do you not consider withholding the law. There is law on one side and large-scale violence on the other, the government had no response. We all judges (on the bench) decided to stay it. What is to do with politics in this? There was nothing political here."He stated that he had not faced any interference from the executive during his tenure, and that the press-conference by four Supreme Court judges alleging bias in listing of cases, was most unfortunate."It was the most unfortunate thing to happen in the history of the Indian judiciary. I tried my best to not let it happen. I tried to mediate and was partially successful."On key cases like challenge to electoral bonds and Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) not being listed during his tenure, he said,"It was not kept pending deliberately as you see it. A suspiscious person always finds what he is looking for. It is true for domestic front. It is true for executive, it is is true for politics; it was during the pandemic. There were hundreds of cases where we asked them to appear and lawyers, litigants could not appear. For CAA, we had to allow 500 to 600 lawyers in court, which we could not do then."The former CJI stressed that the primacy of judicial appointments must rest with the Collegium and not the executive, even as the latter is better placed to provide certain information on judges."I find it completely legitimate that executive has a larger interest in judges appointment since they are the largest litigant ... Primacy of opinion must be of the judiciary and executive cannot have a veto power. We are in the best position to know the judges who are being appointed ... When IB reports on activity of the judges; suppose a candidate has a view that India should be divided then executive can take a call? So, the CJI and the Collegium should have a consultation with the executive but primacy must remain with the Collegium. Consultation does not mean concurrence; execeutive is in the best position to give such information." On his controversial remark in Court where he had suggest that a rape-accused marry the survivor, the former CJI clarified that it was reported without providing context. "They (the accused and survivor) had a love affair, they were distantly related. Parents said you get married as they had a 7-year-long affair. They made an agreement to marry. The woman said she will prosecute him for rape since they had sex. The man moved for anticipatory bail and I asked 'whether you will marry or not' and I eventually rejected the anticipatory bail. But the public said recall the order. What do you want me to do? Give bail in the case?"He also responded to the question about a photograph of him seated on a Harley Davidson motorcycle which had gone viral. The CJI said that he does own a a Harley Davidson bike though the one shown in the photograph was a different one. "I just sat on it and someone took a picture and sent it to her lawyer-husband and it was viral. Though I became popular with the younger crowd," he said.